Discussion in 'Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum' started by 320 Years of History, Nov 4, 2015.
Xelor re-read the 2nd paragraph of your post re Aristotle & Plato.
The first time I mention Plato or Aristotle is in post 45. You'll find that my comments derive from a remark in post 43, which is about Pantheism.
In the paragraphs following my first mention of Plato and Aristotle, you'll note that I wrote the following:
The problem with declaring based on his writings in Metaphysics is that the man's arguments had nothing to do with theism. The difference being that while Aristotle argued that there must be a "Prime Mover," which he describes as "pure actuality" rather than some sort of anthropomorphic entity, he didn't argue that a god, the Judeo-Christian notion of God, was that mover. Aristotle's is a secular argument, thus neither monotheistic or polytheistic.
As I alluded to in post 45, context is "everything." Were I to say "it's raining," would you think it's raining everywhere, or just where I am? Of course, you'd think it's raining where I am. The context, even though I didn't explicitly provide it is apparent to you because you understand how weather works. Reading Metaphysics and making inferences about what Aristotle meant, one must keep in mind the context in which that text's arguments are presented, and theism isn't part of it.
So far I have gone as far as the first sentence in your 4th paragraph. And yes there is a rebuttal, and it's that your first inference about an all powerful god being constrained to the same universe(s) he creates. This does not logically follow, since there has to be some form a causality that would require a being outside of the universe and all the rules it set upon it, to then create it. What you're asserting is like saying that a scientist made a rat maze, and after they have made it are now restrained to that maze. Or a game creator, now living inside of the game...I do not see the need for an all powerful being to then be forced to be constrained by their own rules.
I'll will read further
So in response to the ARGUMENT section. While you are correct there is no concrete deductive reasoning argument for gods existence...if there was, what would be the point. One of the pillars of Judeo-Christian theism is that god granted free will to humans, if we all know for certain an all powerful god existed, that's going to put quite the constrain on the same free will we were supposably granted. If we all knew he existed, and that he's powerful enough to create the entirety of the universe, why would we question otherwise, or try to prove or bet against an all powerful being? That would be just stupid and crazy.
I will read further, (sorry I don't want to forgot points as I read, so I've conversing by piecemeal sections).
As for the rest, the arguments you cited, I don't consider as proof, nor do I consider really any of them to be strong ones. So I'm staying out of that.
introduction and assertion
Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
No. It makes sense to accept God's existence based upon the indirect evidence for his existence, our personal experience as creators and reason.
Maybe the better question is why not accept Gods existence?
RE: | Debate Now | Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
※→ ding, et al,
The question implies that there are some sensible argument and difference between:
• Existence based upon the "evidence that establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred : circumstantial evidence;" principly considered "indirect evidence."
• Existence based solely on the arguments presented for it ⇒ is more in the realm of theoretical and metaphysical.
The existence of the Supreme Beings can only be discussed in the realm of a belief system. It cannot be argued in the realm of tangible evidence that can be scientifically analyzed.
It is ∴ possible for the theorist to make use of both the "Belief System" and the "Scientific Method." Neither can prove or disprove the other, neither can have an impact the other.
Most arguments for "existence" come in the form of either a "testimonial" or a "supernatural" experience.
That's a limited perspective on how to look at God and the universe.
But it does not make sense to blindly accept knowledge on authority of others. We should always ask ourselves if what they say makes sense. This requires us to make observations and use reason.
Can you tell me where I am wrong?
If not, haven't I just won the debate?
Separate names with a comma.